§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move for a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each 483 Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, my attention was attracted to this subject during the sittings of the Second Chamber Conference a year and a-half ago, and I then noticed what an enormous increase there had been in the creation of Peerages in recent years. So far as I could ascertain the facts for myself, in the 25 years from 1880 to 1905, 91 Peerages were created, or an average of less than 4 a year. In the 12½ years subsequent to 1905 there were 150 Peerages created, or an average of 15 a year. During the tenure of office of the present Government there have been, as far as I can understand, 48 new Peerages created, or at the rate of about 24 a year, besides 12 promotions; or, in other words, 60 new Peerages in the 2 years. I know that there are exceptional circumstances. Some of the higher stages of the Peerage were granted to members of the collateral branches of the Royal Family who gave up German titles, and there were, of course, one or two in connection with the war. But the enormous proportion of the Peerages which have been created during the last 2 years have had, so far as I can see, no relation to the war at all.
§ I think it is very important that we should know the exact facts, and the only way to do that is to get a Return which will be published with authority. I may mention that since I have put the Motion down on the Paper I have had my attention called to a Return which deals with the years 1830 to 1899, and over the whole of that long period there was an average of about 6½ or 7 a year new Peerages created. That shows what a new departure has been made in recent years in the enormous number of additions which have been made to this House. I have not given notice of it, but I would ask the noble Earl the Lord President whether it would not be expedient in giving the Return to know which of the Peerages mentioned in it may have become extinct on failure of heirs.
§ Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of all the Peerages created during the tenure of office of each Government from the year 1880 down to the present time.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, the question raised by my noble friend is one of importance, and I shall have 484 no difficulty in promising him the Return for which he asks. The matter is one into which I have been making such investigation as was open to me this morning, and, while agreeing with the general propositions laid down by my noble friend, I am not certain that his figures are altogether correct. The Return for which he asks will, of course, check them when it is made
But I might, perhaps, in relation to the figures which he has given, acquaint your Lordships with those that to the best of my ability I have been able to ascertain in looking into the matter to-day. It is true that the pace has been greatly accelerated during the past century and still further accelerated during the past few years, for the reasons to which my noble friend, though only partially, has alluded. Perhaps the following figures may interest your Lordships. When Queen Anne succeeded to the Throne there were 188 members of your Lordships' House; when George III came to the Throne in 1760 there were 224; when George IV succeeded in 1820 there were 372; when Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 there were 439; after her long reign and upon the accession of King Edward in 1901 there were 591; when King Edward was succeeded by the present Sovereign in 1910 there were 623; and at the present time, in the year 1919, there are a little over 700 members of your Lordships' House. This shows that during the last 100 years there have been 330 additions to the Peerage, and that over 100 of these have been during the last eighteen years.
Perhaps I may make the process rather more clear if I give, with as much accuracy as I have been able to secure, the figures of the respective Administrations. I need not for the present purpose go further back than Mr. Gladstone's long Administration which began in 1868. Between 1868 and 1874 there were 39 additions to the Peerage—that is, at the rate of 6½ per annum. Mr. Disraeli followed from 1874 to 1880 with 29 additions—that is, at the rate of 5 per annum. Then came Mr. Gladstone's Administration of 1880 to 1885 with an addition of 28—that is, 5½ per annum. Then followed Lord Salisbury's long Administration from 1886 to 1892, with 38 additions—that is, at the rate of 6 per annum. This was followed by the successive Liberal Administrations of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, from 1892 to 1895; there were during that period 485 16 additions—that is, at the rate of 5½ per annum. When the Liberal Ministry fell we had the long era of Conservative Administrations under the lead, first, of Lord Salisbury, and afterwards of Mr. Balfour; they were in office continuously from 1895 to 1905. During that time 44 additions were made to your Lordships' House by Lord Salisbury, and 18 by Mr. Balfour—62 in ten years; that is, again, at the rate of about 6 per annum. Thus we see that up to that date, 1905, the ratio was approximately the same—something between 5 and 6 per annum.
We come now to the moment at which the pace was accelerated and when, I think my noble friend was justified in saying, a new departure supervened. This was when Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman became Prime Minister in 1905. He was succeeded in 1908 by Mr. Asquith, who remained in office as the head of a purely Liberal Ministry until May 25, 1915. We may therefore take it as a continuous period of Liberal Administration lasting for over ten years. During that time 89 additions were made—that is, the annual rate rose from 5 or 6 to 9.
Lastly we come to the latest phase, starting with Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government which took office in May, 1915. That Government remained in power until December, 1916, and was then succeeded by the present Administration. During the little more than a year and a-half of Mr. Asquith's Coalition Government 21 additions were made; that is at the rate of about 15 a year. During the present Administration, which has lasted from December, 1916, to the present day—I do not think my noble friend's figures were quite right about this—there have been, so far as I can ascertain, excluding the 4 Peerages given to members of the Royal family, 36 additions to the Peerage.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONI make it out to be about 36, but I may not be quite right. That, again, is at the rate of 15 a year, so that if we take the two periods of the Coalition Governments—years of war, I would remind your Lordships—from May, 1915, to the present date, there have been 57 additions, which means a rate of 14 per annum. Thts we have gone up under conditions of war. We went up, in the period of Sir H. Campbell- 486 Bannerman's and Mr. Asquith's Administrations, from the rate of 5 or 6 a year to 9. We have now gone up to 14. Of course, as my noble friend remarked, this is largely due to exceptional circumstances. But I would point out that the exceptional circumstances do not arise out of the war alone. They arise out of the existence of a Coalition Government and the fact that the Coalition Government represents two Parties—I hope I may say all Parties—in the State, and that therefore the distribution of honours is inevitably on a larger scale than it would be with a Ministry formed of persons of one political complexion alone.
It is not for me to say—perhaps your Lordships may wish to discuss the matter later when you get the Return—whether the distribution has been, or is, excessive. It certainly appears to me that, whatever value may be attached to the legislative privileges of your Lordships' House, the charms of the Peerage as a social attraction do not diminish, and I am told by those who have cognisance of such matters—I am very glad to say that I have not—that one of their difficulties is not in admitting candidates to the privilege of the Peerage, but in excluding those who think they have not only a great claim but a superior claim to anybody else to appear in your Lordships' House.
I do not say that the figures which I have given are very consoling, although I am myself rather at a loss to know what conclusion to draw from them. There is, however, this to be remembered, that while this great increase has been taking place in the strength of your Lordships' House the population of the country has been increasing also, and I assume that it is not an unfair thing to say that the Peerage ought to bear some ratio to the numerical strength of the population as a whole. Let me give your Lordships the figures in that respect at one or two different periods. I take the population of England and Wales as distinct from that of Scotland and Ireland, for this reason—that Scotland has her own representative Peers, as has Ireland. I do not; know that, if I included those populations, the result would be very different; but for the purposes of my calculation, in order to make it more fair, I exclude them. In 1815, at the close of the Waterloo campaign, there was a total of 336 members of your Lordships' House. If we deduct 487 from these the Bishops, who sit here by right of their Sees, and the Irish and Scottish Peers, who were representative then as they are now; there were in 1815, 256 Peers out of a population in England and Wales of 11,000,000 persons; that is a ratio of one Peer to every 43,000 of the population. In 1854 the number of Peers had risen to 454. If you make a similar deduction from that total you get—I am not quite certain of my figures here; I drew them up with some haste—you get, I think, a ratio of one Peer to every 50,000 of the population.
Now we take the year 1918 which is the latest year for which I have been enabled to procure figures. If we make a similar deduction of the Bishops, the Irish and Scottish Peers, and the Law Lords from the total number of Peers, we get a total of 626 Peers for a population in England and Wales of 37,500,000; in other words, we now have one Peer to every 60,000 of the population. It is for your Lordships to draw what deductions you like from that. Whether the ratio is a fair one or not it is not for me to say. All it does prove is that as the population is increasing, the number of Peerages is not increasing in the same ratio. These are general observations, which I have made with a view to assisting the noble Lord in the Inquiry which he has instituted. When he gets the Return he will no doubt revert to the charge, and I anticipate a discussion which will be interesting if not fruitful.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, the noble Earl has given interesting figures, and I am going to suggest that he should make them still more interesting. I cannot say that I was altogether impressed by the argument which the noble Earl used at the close of his speech. We were to have a Peerage which was to be commensurate with the population. I always flattered myself in the old days that the noble Earl of all people regarded admissions to this House, not from the point of view of a compliment to individuals or as a there satisfaction to the nation that the population was adequately represented in regard to numbers, but in the sense that they would strengthen this House by the attendance of those members who were honoured with Peerages. What I venture to put to the noble Earl is that the great profusion, for which he has apologised, in the creation of Peerages during the last 488 few years has not added to the strength of this House, because the large majority of those who have been appointed attend very rarely; and one of the most important questions which the public regards, so far as it regards the debates of this House, is that for a long period of years there has been a tendency for members of this House to gravitate to the support of one political Party. If, when Mr. Campbell-Bannerman took office in 1906, the pace of creations of Peerages was greatly increased, as it was, and that pace was taken into a canter by Mr. Asquith and into a gallop by Mr. Lloyd George, if the public are to be satisfied it will not be merely because additional compliments have been paid to individuals, but because those who were appointed did act in some degree in leavening the Debates and Divisions of this House. We all know to our regret that the numbers attending this House have not been increased in relation to the additional number of Peers who have been appointed, and I think that as a record is kept every day of the attendance of Peers, it would not be at all unfair to ask the noble Earl to add to the Motion of my noble friend words to this effect—
and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906.I move that addition, not because I wish to pick out any class of Peers for special notice, but merely because the whole basis of this great creation of Peers has been the idea that you would produce a body more in accord with the advanced principles of the day. If the result of creating those Peers is that we have not the advantage of their attendance here, then the whole of that object is defeated. I ask my noble friend to accept the addition of these words.
§
Amendment moved—
At the end of Motion add—"and of the attendance at the sittings of the House, of Peers created since January 1st, 1906."—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONI confess to being taken by surprise by the Motion of my noble friend. I always deprecate, as a matter of Parliamentary usage in either House of Parliament (it is easier in this House than the other), suddenly introducing an Amendment or Motion at the last moment of which no notice has been given, which is sprung upon the House, and which raises an entirely different, and in this case a wholly 489 irrelevant, issue. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is entirely entitled to ask for the information he did. I gave it with readiness, but I submit that to tack on to the Motion a record of the attendances of your Lordships' House is not only to do an invidious thing but it is to treat a domestic matter, for which your Lordships are responsible, as if it were a matter of national importance comparable with the issue raised by Lard Balfour of Burleigh. If the noble Viscount desires at any time to raise this question, to censure this House or individuals in the House for failure to perform their legislative duties, let him raise the question and we will meet him. I dare say a good many withers would be wrung in that operation, but do not let him tack it on to this Motion. If he desires to press the matter to a division, I shall ask your Lordships not to accept his addition to the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that if the noble Viscount desires to divide, I personally shall have to record my vote with the noble Earl opposite. It does not appear to me that the creation or multiplication of Peerages has a great bearing, or indeed any real bearing, on the question of attendance. If the attendances of noble Lords in your Lordships' House are to be canvassed I am afraid it will be necessary, if the Return is to be at all a fair one, to discover and publish the attendance of all noble Lords whether they have succeeded to hereditary Peerages or whether they have been created. There is no obligation, so far as I am aware, on a man who has been created a Peer to attend more frequently than those who have succeeded to hereditary Peerages, and the selection of the year 1905, at which a particular Government came into power opposed to the views of the noble Viscount, appears to me, to say the least of it, invidious. Therefore I sincerely trust that the noble Viscount will not persist in his addition to the Motion. If he desires at some other time to raise the whole question of attendance at your Lordships' House it is another matter, but I trust that this particular Motion will be left alone and receive no addition.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHBefore we go to a Division I should like to say one word on the matter. I was not prepared for the addition, and I do not 490 know whether it rests with me to accept it or not. It rests with the House. I suggest to the noble Viscount that if we are going into the question of attendance we ought to take a longer period. I went into this matter with some care at the time of the Second Chamber Conference, and the officers of the House made a complete return of attendances over a period of years. There would be no reason for this House to be afraid of having that Return made public, if it was done over a sufficiently long period, because the attendance here took myself and the members of the Second Chamber Conference with complete surprise, as we did not believe it had been nearly so large as was indicated by the figures. I ask the noble Viscount, therefore, to consider carefully the period and to make it a longer one than he suggests.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not know exactly what course my noble friend will take on this matter, but I confess I cannot regret that he has raised this point. It seems to me to be of the highest importance that it should be well understood, not only by the public but also by those gentlemen who have been honoured or are about to be honoured by His Majesty's favour and created Peers, that they are not made Peers merely in order to have "noble Lord" written in front of their name, but in order that they should take their part as members of the Parliament of this country. That appears to me to be a most important matter.
The idea that gentlemen who have earned the favour of the Sovereign—for perfectly good reasons, I believe, in the vast majority of cases, for work in various professions and departments of life—get their Peerage merely for the sake of the "gilding" which it gives to their names, seems to me the most degrading view of the Peerage which can be conceived. Peers are here in order that they should sit and vote as members of the House of Lords; and though I quite agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that probably the attendance of this House is sometimes underrated, yet there is no doubt—it is notorious—that the vast majority of Peers never come into your Lordships' House at all, or very rarely, That is a very deplorable matter.
It is quite true, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, that the obligation to attend is quite as much on the Peer who succeeds by inheritance as on the Peer who is 491 created, but it is true that the Peer who comes here by creation of his own motion and will has accepted the Peerage, and therefore has accepted the obligations which attend on the Peerage. It is a very astonishing thing that a large majority—I do not say all—of those who have been elevated to this House do not seem to acknowledge the obligations which rest upon them. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said with truth that the period over which this Return should stretch requires careful consideration, and I think also I ought to say, in justice to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that there is probably an inconvenience in raising a debate of this kind and pressing it to a Division except after notice. How far that will weigh with the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, I do not know, but I think the noble Earl will probably agree with the substance of my noble friend's speech—which was, in effect, that those who receive Peerages ought to accept and fulfil the obligation which the Peerage throws upon them.
LORD SEMPILLI do not know what your Lordships are going to do with the addendum moved by the noble Viscount, but I should like to point out the hardship that would manifestly accrue from its acceptance, and that is that many members of your Lordships' House have during the period of the war been serving their King and Country, and naturally have been unable to attend in this House. I think that period ought, therefore, be taken into consideration if the noble Viscount's addendum be accepted.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINIf I may say a single word, as having had an opportunity of sitting in both Houses of Parliament, I should wish to add to what has fallen from my noble friends. First of all, let me say that on a fitting occasion I should be entirely in favour of some Motion of this kind, but it ought not to be confined to the House of Lords. I observe, in the elected House consisting of upwards of 700 Members, that Bill after Bill quite recently has been hurried through and sent up to this House, less than 200 members out of the 700 having taken part in the Divisions. It is impossible, with that happening day after day in the elected House, that the views and opinions of the constituencies can be adequately represented.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONAfter the suggestion made to me, I shall not trouble your Lordships with further discussion. I only hope that when the noble Earl finds his numbers a little decreased he will remember the word "irrelevance" which he used to me on a matter which I consider very relevant on a subject of this kind. If he should sometimes find that the numbers behind him are not as large as they might be, in view of the additions which are made month after month to the Peerage, the noble Earl must recollect that on this occasion he has not given full rein to the feeling which I know he has held all his life as to the obligation resting on every Peer, and more especially on those who have been created, to give attendance in support of their Party.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, original Motion agreed to.